The Gemara refutes this proof: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who maintains that a woman who engaged in atypical intercourse is permitted to a High Priest, and when Rav said his statement, it was in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who holds that such a woman is disqualified from marrying a High Priest.

The Gemara asks: If Rav’s statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, why did he specifically state that she is forbidden to him because she is a non-virgin? Let him derive it from the fact that she is a zona, as Rabbi Elazar said: Even in the case of an unmarried man who had intercourse with an unmarried woman not for the purpose of marriage, he has thereby caused her to become a zona.

Rav Yosef said: When Rav said that a woman who had anal intercourse is disqualified from marrying a High Priest, he was referring to a woman who had intercourse with an animal, as there she is disqualified because she is a non-virgin, but she is not disqualified because of the prohibition of a zona.

Abaye said to him: Whichever way you look at it, there is a difficulty with this answer: If she is considered a non-virgin, she is also a zona, and if she is not a zona she is also not a non-virgin. And lest you say that it is analogous to a case of a woman who lost her virginity via penetration by a foreign object atypically, i.e., anally, whose hymen was therefore not damaged and she is not forbidden as a zona, yet she is no longer considered a virgin, that is not correct: If so, if such a woman is considered a non-virgin and forbidden to a High Priest, you would have no woman who is fit for the High Priesthood, who has not lost her virginity via penetration by a foreign object atypically, i.e., by a pebble used to clean herself in the lavatory.

Rather, Rabbi Zeira said that Rav was referring to one who refused her husband after having only atypical intercourse with him. Although the act of intercourse was not licentious, as she was married at the time, she is nevertheless disqualified from marrying into the priesthood because she is not a virgin.

§ Rabbi Shimi bar Ḥiyya said: A woman who had intercourse with an animal is like one whose hymen was torn accidentally. Consequently, she is not a zona and is fit for the priesthood. This is also taught in a baraita: If a woman had intercourse with one who is not a man, i.e., an animal, although she is liable to stoning if she did so intentionally and in the presence of witnesses who forewarned her of her punishment, she is nevertheless fit for the priesthood.

When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael he said: There was an incident involving a certain girl [riva] in the village of Hitlu who was sweeping the house, and a village [kufri] dog used for hunting sodomized her from behind. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permitted her to the priesthood, as she was not considered a zona. Shmuel said: And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi permitted her even to a High Priest, as she was still considered a virgin. The Gemara is puzzled by this comment: Was there a High Priest in the days of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi? Rather, Shmuel meant that she is fit for a High Priest.

Rava of Pirkin said to Rav Ashi: From where is this matter derived that the Sages stated that there is no harlotry with regard to an animal? Rav Ashi responded that it is as it is written: “You shall not bring the hire of a harlot or the price of a dog into the House of the Lord your God for any vow; for both of them are an abomination to the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 23:19). This verse prohibits one from sacrificing an animal as an offering if that animal was ever used to pay a harlot for her services, or if it was ever used as payment in the purchase of a dog.

And we learned in a mishna (Temura 30a): The hire of a dog, i.e., a kosher animal that a man or woman gave as payment to the owner of a dog in order to have sexual intercourse with it, and similarly the price of a prostitute, a kosher animal used to purchase a prostitute as a maidservant, are permitted to be sacrificed as offerings. This is because it is stated that both of them, the specific items listed in the verse, are abominations. Consequently, only two items are prohibited, i.e., the payment given to a prostitute for her services, and the payment used in the purchase of a dog, and not four, as the reverse cases are excluded from this halakha.

§ The Sages taught: A High Priest may not marry a woman that he himself raped and a woman that he himself seduced, as he is commanded to marry a virgin. And if he married her, he is married. With regard to a woman who was raped by another man and a woman seduced by another man, he may not marry her. And if he married her, Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says that the child born from this union is a ḥalal, and the Rabbis say the lineage of the offspring is unflawed.

The Gemara analyzes this baraita. It states that if he married the woman that he himself raped or seduced, he is married. Rav Huna said that Rav said: And he must divorce her with a bill of divorce. The Gemara asks: But consider that which the baraita teaches: If he married her, he is married. Since it is obvious that the marriage is technically valid, it must be saying that they are permitted to remain married. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: No, it means to say